Wall denies his ability was impaired

More on Wall

Steamboat Springs  Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall was cited on suspicion of driving under the influence and prohibitive use of a weapon Saturday night.

Wall was stopped by a Colorado State Patrol trooper while returning from the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association's 100th anniversary celebration at Sidney Peak Ranch. A news release from the Sheriff's Office indicated Wall was pulled over at about 10:15 p.m. Saturday.

Wall said he was stopped because he didn't dim his headlights. He said he was not intoxicated or impaired.

"I did not consume anything that would have affected my ability to drive," Wall said Sunday when reached on his cell phone.

After issuing Wall a court summons, the unidentified State Patrol trooper allowed Wall to leave with a sober driver, who also was not identified. The prohibitive use of a weapon charge was made because it's illegal to possess a weapon when under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

A Steamboat Springs-based Colorado State Patrol trooper and a Craig dispatcher refused to comment about the case Sunday evening, referring questions to Capt. Brett Williams, who was out of the office Sunday and didn't answer calls made to his home.

Wall was in Denver on Sunday to attend the World Series game. He is not expected to return to Routt County until Wednesday. Wall refused further comment about the case except to say that more information would be made available in the future.

Other details of the incident were unclear Sunday, including whether Wall was given a roadside sobriety test. Steamboat Springs defense attorney Kris Hammond said there is no penalty for refusing a field sobriety test, but drivers who refuse a chemical test at a hospital or jail can have their licenses revoked for up to a year.

Routt County Sheriff's Office Investigator Ken Klinger said it's not unusual for someone to be cited for DUI and released to a sober driver without being arrested. He said Wall's treatment was "nothing new or nothing special to him."

"This is very typical," said Klinger, who noted that the decision would have been at the discretion of the State Patrol.

The Sheriff's Office has opened an internal affairs investigation to be conducted separate of the State Patrol's criminal investigation. The internal affairs investigation will seek to determine whether Wall violated Sheriff's Office policies or procedures. Klinger, Sgt. Miles De Young and Investigator Mike Curzon will lead the investigation.

Klinger said internal affairs investigations are common when Sheriff's Office employees are accused of wrongdoing. Klinger cited an investigation in August that led to the firing of Mitchell Bachum, a probationary detention deputy who was accused of approaching an 18-year-old woman at a Fort Collins convenience store, asking her personal questions and for directions to a nightclub, and then asking her to get into his vehicle. Bachum was not charged with a crime.

It was unclear Sunday what punishment Wall, an elected official, could face if the investigation reveals he violated department policies.

Klinger said Wall is "an employee just like the rest of us" and could possibly be fired, but Routt County Commissioner Nancy Stahoviak said such a move would be difficult.

Stahoviak said she would check with County Attorney John Merrill to see whether the commissioners need to do anything in response to Wall's citation. Both Stahoviak and Klinger said Wall's citation has presented an unfamiliar situation.

"This is a new tune," Klinger said. "We've never danced this thing before."

All Sheriff's Office deputies were briefed Sunday evening about the incident by Undersheriff David Bustos. Klinger said he expects Wall to address all Sheriff's Office employees when he returns later this week.

More than 200 people attended the Chamber's celebration Saturday. Alcohol was served at the event, but no attendees reached by the Pilot & Today on Sunday could confirm whether Wall had any drinks. Cam Boyd, broker owner at Prudential Steamboat Realty, said he spoke with Wall briefly and that the sheriff did not have a drink in his hand at that time. Sandy Evans Hall, the Chamber's executive vice president, said she only saw Wall when he arrived.

Fish: This officer is very brave and should be commended. Again, it was only a matter of time, it could have happened in any jurisdiction from here to Denver. What bashing you will now see is Wall bashing the CSP. He will never assume responsibility for what he is doing. As previously stated the BG (Blame Game) is now commence.

A drunk driver is a drunk driver is a drunk driver!!!!!!!
Let the district attorney's investigator JOESEPH DEANGELO investigate this one. Do a Google or Yahoo search for JOSEPH DEANGELO and read # 3 with the byline--" Fort Wayne, Indiana Police, JOSEPH DEANGELO"------. I think that you will be amazed with what you read. I know that you will be disappointed with what is going on in our area with law enforcement. One will wonder why a breath test was not given to support the troopers opinion. That is evidence that will hold up in court.

BREAKING NEWS! Another Pilot SCOOP! That is REAL journalism! You guys are the greatest crack, undercover reporters!

Dig in there, Pilot. Sharpen the old knives and rub your hands together with glee. Another person you have had it in for the last year or so. Can't wait til you release the howling monkeys! This is a hay day for you!!! Sic 'em, Fido!

Hang on everyone of you bloggers that love to hate Wall, you can join in on the fun of ripping another community member apart! I know you'll all do your best to be the worst you can be.

Dimwit: This behavior has been suspected by other people, it was only a matter of time that he got pick-up. Wall is a professional witness, and is an expert at not cooperating and refusal, that why a breath test was not administered. He will take his chances in court and hope for a weak jury. Most of his defense will be desecrating the officers, he's used this defense before. Gee, why do you suppose the commissioners don't want him driving a county vehicle off duty?

How would you feel if Wall or any other stooge who drove drunk plowed down a member of your family?

How would you feel if Wall or any other deputy for that matter plowed down someone while in a county owned vehicle?

Is the sheriff, if guilty, immune from the same laws which we must abide by?

Many of us have witnessed Wall holding up bars at public functions. Many of us have even seen the Undersheriff Bustos drinking while showing his badge and gun at the recent Search & Rescue fundraiser. This whole administration is rank and foul, and the stench is beginning to ruin the beauty of this community.

You get pulled over, they give you a roadside sobriety test. They may also give you a "visual nystagmus" test which -- may -- indicate intoxication. Then you blow into a breathalyzer, and depending on what that says, they take you to town for a blood test. If you refuse a breath or chemical test, you lose your license anyway.

So, unless the CSP administered a blood or breathalyzer test, there's no evidence to go on UNLESS he refused the blood/breath tests.

I've been stopped, had the test, and drove away after passing the breathalyzer. No summons was issued, because there was insufficient evidence of impairment.

The CSP ought to know how to do this stuff. We'll have to wait for the evidence to come out, however, if Wall had refused the test and shown signs of intoxication, he would have been arrested. They would not have let a drunk drive away. He'd have been taken to a holding cell and kept there as a matter of public safety.

A self internal investigation is a comic story ! the commissioners need to call the Attorney General ASAP to protect the citizens of Routt county, and let another County conduct an investigation. Wall needs to be relieved of duty immediately.

dundalk
Read the article and reply. I am very interested to see what your opinion is. I respect your opinion and feel that you have made some very good comments. I am only trying to inform the public. People like you and me need to be advised. WE can learn a lot by reading. Thanks for your contributions. Keep them coming.

The CSP has a history with Wall, remember the organized "Town Meetings" by Wall, defending the drunks ! Everyone know Walls M.O. They are not going to comment on a case currently under investigation. They will call their big guns also.

The 9News people broke this story, not our stellar paper. You are right, by the way. There probably are numerous people in this town who drive while under the influence. It wouldn't shock me to hear that some come wobbling out of the Double ZZ. That's not the point here though, now is it.

Are we to presume by your post that law enforcement is above the law when it comes to drinking and driving? Are we to presume that if Wall was under the influence, that his position should negate his crime (if commited)?

You did not answer my question though? I sincerely hope you never know the pain of loss when a family member is taken out by a drunk driver.

You needn't worry about smear campaigns rolled by the public. Wall has done a fine job spreading his reputation around.

Id04:
The reason why he wasn't taken to jail is that the only official that can arrest the Sheriff is the Coroner. That is Colorado State Statute. Even though he was only summonsed to court, it is still considered an "arrest" in the national standards for statistical reporting. CSP wouldn't hesitate taking anyone to jail for DUI, but their hands were statutorily tied. If Mr. Wall were to apply for a future job (which he may need to do here shortly) he would have to include this incident as an "arrest".

There are more significant details that haven't been released as of yet. DUI isn't the only offense written on that summons.

Id04:
The reason why he wasn't taken to jail is that the only official that can arrest the Sheriff is the Coroner. That is Colorado State Statute. Even though he was only summonsed to court, it is still considered an "arrest" in the national standards for statistical reporting. CSP wouldn't hesitate taking anyone to jail for DUI, but their hands were statutorily tied. If Mr. Wall were to apply for a future job (which he may need to do here shortly) he would have to include this incident as an "arrest".

There are more significant details that haven't been released as of yet. DUI isn't the only offense written on that summons.

"Cam Boyd, broker owner at Prudential Steamboat Realty, said he spoke with Wall briefly and that the sheriff did not have a drink in his hand at that time. Sandy Evans Hall, the Chamber's executive vice president, said she only saw Wall when he arrived."

Unbelievable, no offense to Cam Boyd, but he is a realtor not an expert at determining whether people are intoxicated or not.

dun, yes, we all know you're the expert. No one meant to step on your toes. Never had a drink or two and driven home, huh? You're a saint.

I used to until I found out that it's not cool anymore about 20 years ago. I'll bet there are many of you who still do. Hell, even a teacher did that about two weeks ago, but that's not meant as a cheap shot. It's a fact. Read it in the paper (I guess that means MAYBE it's a fact).

I'm sure all of you would never drink and drive. Yes he's the sheriff, and a human. I hope if he was drinking and driving his blood alcohol was within tolerance (we won't know that now) and that he never drives again even after one drink without waiting an hour and having something to eat.

EC already shot the sheriff, but you can shoot a man when he's down if you want. I won't, but I'm a dimwitiguess.

Sorry "Benny" you are wrong about the Coroner being the only one who can arrest the Sheriff. That is an urban myth.

The CSP had every right under the law to arrest Wall. He didn't go to jail, since he was issued a summons. Oh, and the reason a breath/blood test wasn't given is because Wall refused both!
I'm sure he refused because he knew he was over the limit, and that would be the proof of his DUI.

I'll have to agree that Wall will not be taken seriously after this incident.

Unfortunately, if there is a recall, the other choices who came forward in the last election are no better than Wall when it comes to issues beyond domestic violence and traffic violations.

We need someone like a retired FBI agent to come in and run for the office. A successful career as a patrol officer in ANY jurisdiction is not enough preparation to deal with economic and white collar crimes in our midst.

This is really just a sad day for everyone who believes in universal law and order. Sheriff Wall had a chance to make things better, and now it's gone.

Gee, and I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty in the US of A. Amazing how many of you are willing to take away the rights of others and give up your own - or would you give up your own?

If the officer asked him to take a blow test and he refused, why didn't the officer arrest him. Gary chose his right to refuse the test, if that is in fact what happened. Because he refused --- in your minds he's guilty? Now that IS sound reasoning!

Did the officer follow him to watch for other violations? Did he radio ahead and report the stop and ask other officers to be on the lookout? What other things could the officer have done to ensure that poor, dundalk's children weren't run over?

If anyone is wrong or abused the justice system, it is the officer who made the stop. He should have displayed better judgement and not let him drive off if impaired. BUT my belief is he (the officer) felt there was NO REAL reason to take the stop any further.

Yeh, I know, you all are wiser and have a deeper background in law enforcement and than I. I just want, for some stupid reason, to protect others' and my rights to our DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS, but you know me, I'm just a dimwitiguess.

My gosh, the sheriffs actually a human? Who would have thought? Simple fact, you cannot have 2 (two) drinks at a bar or function and leave 'sober' in the eyes of the law (.08 'impaired' DUI, .05 'discretion of the officer' OWAI). At least this sheriff was out at a public function, being part of our community. With many witnesses about, the truth of the matter will come out, better or worse for Wall.

many, many officers in this country pull people over for not dimming their headlights. It's legal and justified.

The officer did not let Wall leave after Wall refused to take the breatalyzer. He allowed Wall to leave with a sober driver.

Wall has spent most of his term pontificating about how he is above the rules and regulations. His stench of arrogance is as overwhelming as a week old dead elk on the side of the road.

If Wall's assertions that he had nothing which would have affected his ability to drive were true and valid, why not set the standard and take the bloody test? Prove us all wrong. No, he squirmed like a We*&^L.

Twostroke: Gary Wall and Undersheriff Bustos were at a public function, the RCSAR fundaraiser, not too long ago, and Bustos was drinking while carrying a gun and badge in plain sight. Many people were offended by this. Wall was at his usual spot, holding up the bar. Are you really stating that because the Sheriff "was at a public function , being part of the community" that he should be held exempt from following the laws he was voted to uphold? Come on buddy - even for you, that's stretching it a bit.

Unbelievable. So Dimwitt and 2stroke- the Sheriff can drink and drive but the rest of us who like going to social functions or have a couple beers cannot. The insolence displayed in these comments is truely an embarrasment. Your reasoning sucks. Lets go back and give the $7K back to all the people who were just having 2 beers and driving home. Can Gary not afford a cab? And you are right, you are a dimwitt.

This is truly a banner morning for dundalk. Probably pooped yourself when you read the headlines.
First off, all of you need to educate yourself on the laws. It is every person's right to refuse to take the roadside and Breathalyzer tests. They are voluntary. If the officer still suspects that your ability is impaired, then they will arrest you and take you to jail. If you still refuse to take any of the voluntary tests then you might lose your license for up to year. That is decided by a separate hearing with the DMV to determine if the officer had probable cause in arresting you. Believe it or not folks, sometimes the officers are (wait for it...)WRONG.
So, right at this very moment, Sheriff Wall is not guilty. (I think it is written somewhere that you are innocent until proven guilty.)
Everyone needs to put away their pitchforks until we can learn more of the facts. Although this being Steamboat and our newspaper's reporting is a wee-bit slanted, the actual facts may be harder to come by.

Some people are mistakenly thinking when Wall was issued a summons and released, that he just drove himself home. NOT TRUE! Not only was he released to a SOBER driver to drive him home, his driver's license will be revoked--per state law when you refuse a chemical blood/alcohol test when DUI is suspected.

First of all he was stopped legally for not dimming his head lights.

When the officer suspected he was drunk, for reasons not released yet; he was asked to do a field sobriety test, which he refused; he also refused the Breathalyzer test. When he refused the chemical test (blood test), that's where he made the mistake.

CSP officers are highly trained, and I'm sure the officer who stopped him had valid reasons for suspecting him to be under the influence.

Get real! Why would he refuse the test if he had nothing to hide. Now we have a Sheriff that can't even drive because his license was revoked. That's pretty pathetic.

Does this mean Wall has to pay--out of his own pocket--for his defense attorney(s)? Or, was this function within the scope of his official duties as sheriff and we the taxpayers have to foot the bill? Seems like a lot of well-known local attorney's names have been popping up with regards to Wall and his defenses.

Also, if any one of us had been stopped under the same circumstances, would we have been cut a break as Wall was by this (all of a sudden) unknown CSP officer? I thought if you refuse roadside testing, you are automatically taken in for a blood test and then taken to the jail. Anybody know the answer?

If Wall was not inebriated, why didn't he just consent to the tests? Then, he wouldn't have appeared on Channel 9 news or on the front page of the Today. Seems like Wall should be held to a higher degree of accountability. Not much of a role model. But, what do I know? I'm only Charlie Citizen.

I would hope there would be an outside agancy conducting the investigation so there is no possibilty of a whitewash, though I do not expect this to happen. I hope the good people of Steamboat Springs are happy with the sheriff they elected, as I am pretty sure the rest of Routt County voted for someone else. I will not be surprized when this all goes away, and Mr. Wall is still in office.

Actually, wzstfu- The law states that if you refuse to take a roadside test, you are AUTOMATICALLY arrested. There is no need to then make a judgement call if the officer "still suspects" they are under the influence. If they are unsure, they wouldn't ask for the driver to take the roadside in the first place.

Plus, who can state how many cases are on the books as to being told the driver can just go home (with any sober driver) without being arrested after being pulled over? Please name these for me. I drove drunk once...ONCE...in my life and got arrested, deservedly so. My passenger was too drunk to take the car home, but was allowed to call a sober driver/taxi for himself...not for me. I already had a new ride with the officer who pulled me over.

If the CSP were out to 'get' Wall he'd have gone to jail, plain and simple. No one in their right mind ever consents to a road side (physical) test, it's designed for you to fail. A friend of mine knew no better, took one when it was -10 and the officer took her in because she seemed to be 'shivering'. She then blew a .02. My point is 'up to the discretion of the officer' is just that. I've been pulled over by CSP and been given warnings instead of tickets, again, discretion of the officer. Yes you can go to a function and have a couple of beers. 2. No more. If you blow over a .05 and give the officer an attitude, your going to go to jail, even though your not over the 'legal' limit. Blow a .07, don't be an a**, you're gonna drive home. But isn't refusing a breathalizer reason for arrest? How dose 'I'm a little buzzed, give me a summons and a sober driver' work? I'm a little confused, and annoyed, by this. Maybe some more facts on this would help, instead of a bunch of specious reasoning based on a razor sharp journalistic article full of 'unnamed', 'could not be reached' and insightful comments by local dirt pimps.

Can Gary Wall get any more pathetic? This guy just needs to work in his garden and leave law enforcement to the Barney Fifes of this world. Hey Dundalk...were you even able to sleep last night thinking about this?

This was a statement by CSP in the article about safe driving during Halloween.... "Driving impaired is no accident, and when we catch you for driving impaired this Halloween or anytime, we will arrest you. No exceptions. No excuses."

WITH "we will arrest you" & "no exceptions" being the operative phrases.... they seem to have changed their stance and there is at least one exception.

Not Gary Wall! He's such a perfect person and great judge of character! I say, what comes around goes around buddy! He lost a good employee recently for misjudging character and basing his decision off of lies and rumors. Wouldn't do an internal investigation to find the truth. Obviously his thinking is impaired! Now his character will be judged and hopefully he'll be condemned. It's all about bad Karma - it will catch up with you!

"Karma" - Maybe. "You reap what you sow" - Absolutely. Mr. Wall has been getting away with his behavior for too long. I'm bummed that they didn't throw him in the pokey, too. Ya know, he was cited and released for driving under a suspended license before he was put into office. He's been lucky on that end.
Italiris- I thought it had to be the coroner, I could very well be mistaken. Wall should have to face the same consequences as any of us. Hopefully, the end will justify the means.

I too wonder why he wasn't Jailed. Common practice to cite and release???? I would like one example of this in the last two years other than a minor being released to a parent. Mr. Wall seems a little old to be released to a parent. I'm quite sure that this officer seeing who they had, had back up and another set of eyes to confirm what they were seeing, I'd put my money on if he was stopped in town that the SO, PD, and CSP all had more than one officer there. That is alot of eyes to either confirm or deny Wall's story.

Unless they are going to now start summons and releasing everyone who gets a DUI I'd say he got special treatment.

They are most certainly going to have to be extra vigilant with this case or everyone will be claiming the "Gary Wall" defense. Refuse everything and expect someone to call you a ride home..... You can always claim tomorrow you only refused because you were innocent and they didn't have to right to ask? It will be interesting to see how this works out.

The CSP is very professional, I am hoping they don't also reap the benefits of Wall's decision to drive drunk. Was he in a county vehicle and was the sober driver a county employee driving a county vehicle or was someone else driving a county vehicle? If it was not county emplyee how could it have been insured. Wall is a joke, we've known it from the start, we voted him in and now we need to vote him out. He is totally destroying the reputation of the Sheriff['s Office, Deputy Sheriff's and now statewide law enforcement in general in Routt County. How many more things does he have to do for everyone to get the point, does he have to drive drunk and kill someone? Let's face it he has held up the bar at the Old Town Pub for years, maybe that's why he wanted his office in the court house so it was just walk across the street, at least he wouldn't be driving. So we have an undersheriff who likes to drink with his badge and gun, wrecks a county owned vehicle in another state, a Sheriff who has shown lack of support for the youth and elderly, take himelf above the law and county policies and now drives drunk...wow impressive.

Internal affairs will investigate... isn't that a little like asking an embezzler to do his own audit? When it's the top man being investigated it needs to be done by an outside source. Mr. Wall will probably use the defense that he was sober but taking sobriety tests violated his civil liberties. Maybe the CSP will have their ducks in a row and will inforce the law, time will tell.

Good question! Was Wall armed and in a county patrol car when issued a summons for Driving Under the Influence?? If he was armed, I think that's a felony, isn't it? Will Wall be allowed to plea the Felony away and keep his position as Sheriff of Routt County? Makes every single citizen of this county look like fools. How embarassing! He will never have credibility again. Best thing Wall could do is hold a press conference where he should apologize and resign from his position. It would save the many tax dollars that will go towards the two investigations.

Good God people! Do you already have the tree and noose picked out. Are you all tired? You must be because there is a lot of jumping going on, both to assumptions and conclusions! None of you have ANY clue as to what the real story is. The only people who know what happened are the CSP officer, Wall and his passenger. Most if not all of you have condemned the very people who put this website out for their lack of accuracy in reporting the news but in the same breath take what little you know of the story and take it as gospel.
Well here is something for you to chew on. Ever heard the phrases "REDI report" and "disgruntled ex-employee"?

On ANY given night in this town you will see people having a beer or a glass of wine (or god forbid 2) with dinner or even at happy hour after work. We don't have enough cops in the state to sit around and wait for every person who comes out of a restaurant and/or bar after 2 drinks and drive home in order to arrest them and it just isn't logical. The fact is that only Wall knows if he DID have food in his stomach and maybe he only had 1 drink. The fact of the matter is you ARE allowed to refuse both the roadside sobriety test (as any defense lawyer in this town will tell you to do) and you ARE allowed to refuse the roadside breathalyzer. The CSP officer had to have Probable cause to believe he was UNDER THE INFLUENCE of alcohol while he was driving in order to bring Wall in. How many time in the past has CSP been criticized for being so vigilant and accused of chasing down potential drunks when they weren't just to get the arrest. Now they are lax on drunk driving? Pick a story and stick to it!

Merely forgetting to dim your headlights? C'mon people, how many of you would have gotten pulled over in the past because you forgot to dim your headlights to the oncoming car at one point or another? Does that mean you were drunk when you did it? I think NOT!
The only person who knows how much Wall really had to drink would be Wall and the person who was watching him so closely and then called in the REDI report to have him pulled over. I don't expect you people to give anyone the benefit of the doubt because you are all obviously above reproach. Why don't you just chill out until you hear the whole story???

will we ever hear the story, the whole story and nothing but the story?..c'mon steamboatrealitycheck,lighten up.....a sheriff drinkin, drivin and packin heat....at this point that is all it is: a GOOD story

WHO SAID HE WAS PACKING HEAT!!!!!! It was merely posed as a question above by some random person and now you have it as part of the situation. Exactly my point!

I am neither for or against Gary Wall, I am just sick and tired of all of the jumping to conclusions. I am not the one who needs to "lighten up," it is the ones who keep contributing to the rumor mill that keeps this town rotating. No one gets to criticize the paper for not having "all the facts" if they are going to write whatever the hell they want to, true or made up, in this comment section without getting the facts themselves

steamboatrealitycheck - you need to take a reality check. If ANYONE else had been pulled over with the slightest hint of alcohol on their breath AND they refused the roadside test...they would have been hauled off to jail. In addition, as Sheriff, Wall should not be drinking AT ALL if he plans to drive. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Gary Wall is making a mockery of Steamboat and the Law. He always has...he always will. Why on earth would you people elect a drunk as your Sheriff?

I am 100% against drinking and driving...but I hope the next drunk that gets pulled over pulls a "Gary Wallbanger".

I have no problem if in fact it is an accurate statement. Does that mean you have changed your attitude of just last night at 8:18 p.m. about "our stellar paper" and in fact believe that if it is posted by the Pilot it must be accurate.

Right now, in the Routt county jail are dozens of folks who are guilty of one thing lack of money. They can't pay a fine, so they get their lic suspended and end up in jail (at our expense). Mr. Wall, should have been taken to the jail and sat there until Monday as any one of us would have to do. If Mr. Wall has a shred of honor he will come back to town and sit in the holding tank for 36 hours, and eat the garbage we good christians feed the poor folks. The officer who cut him loose should be suspended without pay. How can we say to the folks in jail that this is justice when we flaunt the law. I know when your eating dinner in Cafe Diva, that you won't worry about it, until it is you in the back of the car. Mr Wall should and must resign.

How am I the tight one? I am one of the few people on here today willing to adhere to the notion that we, the general public, do not have the facts of the story. Talk to the lynch mob about being in a tight little world!!

Wow, doesn't this remind you when Wall was running for office and he was arrested for walking home from a Casino?? Also, thought I'd throw this in, another deputy was called to take him home!!! Yeah, you can bet as tax payers we are paying for all of this...

The fact of the story is we have a no tolerance policy to dui, if you do it you go to jail. end of story no punch line. They do not ever "cut you loose". Steamboat and Routt conty have a national reputation in regards to arrest and prosecution as a hard case county. Six months in jail for two boys stealing food out of a dumpster. Shame on us . Mr Wall used his influence to go a ball game rather than jail. It is a disgrace. The guy has to go. Pure and simple, there are times when the "cronys" need to be quiet and let justice work. A warrant should be issued and he should be picked up brought back to Routt county in double locking handcuffs (that is the regulation) and put in jail.

As per State law, only the county coroner can arrest the sheriff. Thats the law and thats why Wall did not go to jail period. If he did not take a blood test he will lose his DL, thats the law period. There will be a lot of guessing about what happened, it was another officer from routt county that was the sober driver and yes he was on duty and took Gary home. And yes he was driving his county vehicle. ohhh this is going to be fun to watch............

How many of you were at that party on Saturday night? How many of you actually witnessed what and how much of what Wall drank? How many of you are such sheep that you will believe every word printed by our newspaper? You people (Steamboatrealitycheck exempted) are absolutely pathetic.
YOU HAVE NO FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you do have is a bunch of Gary Wall haters riding on their high horses proclaiming guilt as if they were judge, jury and executioner.
Roadside tests are voluntary. You don't have to believe me - ask a lawyer.
You do not "automatically" lose your license if you refuse to do the tests. A seperate hearing is conducted by the DMV to determine probable cause. Again, ask a lawyer.
I said this earlier, but heaven forbid anyone read anything that goes against their hate mongering.
Oh yeah, in the United States of America (which Steamboat Springs is a part of), you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty by a COURT OF LAW.
Sorry folks but there shall be no cross burning tonight.

Pat6490 and I are on the same page here. Mr. Wall needs to resign. This is obsurd and biased to those sitting in jail facing consequences for their actions. I can not even believe that there are people posting comments here that favor Wall and his obsurd behavior. How could anyone think this is okay??? This is not hate mongering, this is embarrassing! It's one thing to dislike Mr. Wall because he's an arrogant a@#, but this is completely different. He is innocent until proven guilty, however I highly doubt that CSP would have cited him for DUI without a scent of alcohol on his breath. AND, yes he could have had only one drink, however, a reasonable person would believe that if he only had one drink, he would have taken the breath/blood test. Makes it look like he was trying to hide something. I guess he'll have to explain that in court.

We are all human, and we all make mistakes. However, is our sheriff the influence we want for our young adolecent children? They are just learning how to drive, at the ripe age to be influenced to drink (alcohol), and so impressionable at the same time. We all don't know the full story yet, but our children can read the newspaper. Guilty or not, if your job is to inforce the law, I would expect you would stay sober enough to abide by the law. No one else in this town can drink and drive after one drink without being pulled over, why should he be able to enforce that, yet be an exception to his law. Anyone that has been around Steamboat long enough knows this isn't the first time he has staggered into his car and drove away, this is just the first time he has been caught. I am a devoted Democrat, however I would vote for a Republican any day if I knew he would walk my children across the street instead run them over.

westfu: Gary Wall is a professional "Paid For Hire" witness. He is an expert at defending drunk drivers, he is paid to do this !! You are obviously the only one that does not know this, you look ridiculous.

MADD: That's a tough one. It's a huge frustration that Mr. Wall had to do this and disapoint your children, especially your youngest one and his/her admiration towards being a Sheriff for Halloween. You have a double whammy with this one, because you have the older ones too, who are equating sheriffs to drunks! I'll say it again, this is an embarrassment to us all. I surely hope this doesn't get "swept under the rug".

MADD: How could you expect it not to get swept under the rug, when the Routt County SO is conducting an "internal" investigation, if you ask me Gary Wall is the biggest waste of tax payer $ and a joke of a Sheriff. I guess all the dimwits that voted him are getting what they've had coming all along!

WZ girl: You are right, it is a conflict of interest for the Sheriff's Office to handle this internal investigation of their own boss. However, I have faith in those that are left at the Sheriff's Office and I am hoping that they cross all tee's and dot all i's so that the investigation is non-biased. Not many members of the sheriff's office had much faith in Mr. Wall to begin with. Maybe this straw will break the proverbial camel's back.....

Why doesn't our fearless sheriff just have a driver for those night time outings that he wishes to enjoy a few belts? Many self-important law enforcement leaders have drivers, usually some low ranking officer or deputy. No problem, if someone asks if this is within the guidelines, he won't answer anyway.

WZ- This is going to cost major bucks, especially with the dual investigations going on. I guess the money he's saving the county by cutting Dare, Elderwatch, and GRAMNET, is better spent on this fiasco.

Is it an option now, when there is a suspicion of driving under the influence, to have a "sober driver" take you home instead of being taken to jail after refusing the road side test? What happened to the no tolerance rule?

REALITYCHECK- the only facts that are going to come out of this, are the ones the big boys want to let out...so are those to be taken for golden?...why can't we have an opinion before, during, and after the "investigation"?...and like i said b4, it's still a good story..fiction or non-fiction:)

Is is true that only the Coroner can arrest the Sheriff? If so that adds an interesting twist to the whole thing doesn't it?

It is a shame that Wall would make the choice to drink anything at a public function knowing that he was planning on driving afterwards. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to have his "sober driver" drive him home from the Chamber event rather than the roadside? It simply shows that he does not take his position very seriously.

What a mess! It will be interesting to see how this all works out and whether Wall stays in office.

I can tell you from personal experience that officers can and do let intoxicated drivers go home with non-intoxicated drivers. I think it's up to the individual officer's discretion.

In the case I am personally aware of, the driver was asked if there was a neighbor or friend who could be called for a ride home. Then, the officer said that if the passenger took a breathalyzer, and blew below the legal limit, that the passenger could drive home (with the original driver). When the passenger blew a 0, off they went, with the intoxicated driver getting a verbal warning only and a business card from the officer.

I think everyone has blown a little misunderstanding way out of proportion. As many people know the police around here look for any excuse to pull someone over at night. The charge of not dimming his lights means he was probably just talking and did not flick the button, which happens all the time. I know someone who lost their job because of one of these faulty DUI charges and I would hate to see that happen to our sherriff. Small town gossip should not outweigh the facts.

I believe that is one of the problems in routt county, way too many people believe they can handle a few drinks and still drive, that drinking and driving is just a little misunderstanding. If the [many people know the police around here look for any excuse to pull someone over at night] are that paranoid, they must be trying to hide something. Driving while intoxicated or ability impaired is against the law, if you don't break that law there won't be any little misunderstandings. The best thing that could happen to routt county would be to get a legitimate sheriff.

You know anyone else would have been handcuffed and taken to jail. I know from my husband! Even though I was sober, and was allowed to drive, He had to be handcuffed and taken to jail! It was also the Highway Patrol with 1 hour roadside tests, and 2 hour hold before I could bond him out. His last drink was 10 min before he was pulled over. He was registering sober. But when the Highway Patrol found out it was only 10 min since his last drink, he stalled until he blew over the limit. Clever.
My point is anyone I have ever known to get even pulled over and summond with a DUI, tests or no, has been handcuffed and taken to jail. Why was our sherrif treated special? Yes he was! And if he drank 2 beers or 2 drinks or 2 glasses of wine, the limit is so low, he would have registered over the limit, impaired or not! How does this reflect on our community and the Sherriffs office?
Don't treat him any different Steamboat!!! We are watching!

When it comes to driving under the influence there should not be any room for discussion. Have we forgotten those that have been killed or injured from alcohol or drug intoxicated drivers in the Yampa Valley? What does it take to make good decisions in supporting our officers from citing and/or arresting a person under the influence? I admire the courage the CSP officer had the evening when he pulled over Walls and cited him for driving under the influence.
I was so hopeful that the new "no tolerance DUI laws" would cause more individuals either to not drink and drive, or get a taxi, or have a designated driver available to eliminate these situations. No one should be allowed to to drink and drive on our roads! Let hope that the truth comes out and that Walls is given the appropriate sentence, not just a slap on the hand. Unfortunately, not just in Steamboat, but many towns, a guilty person is let go without any consequences for their behavior due to their position in their community. I know that I've already believe that Walls is guilty, but it based on his refusal of taking the appropriate tests at the time of the incident. An innocent person would gladly take the test!
After living in Steamboat for thirty plus years, never have I been pulled over without cause! It is for our safety and our police, sheriff, and state patrol officers have the responsibility of keeping the roads safe.

Dear Steamboatrealitycheck,
Good for you! It takes a person of character and conviction to go against the grain when so many have appointed themselves judge, jury, & executioner.
You may be interested in my post in the article Wall: I Wasn't Intoxicated.

What I find so interesting in these posts is how many people can actually say or imply by their judgements that they have never committed a similar offense and then gotten behind the wheel. Never had a drink or two at dinner, at a family picknick or getogether, after a softball game, with a pizza, at an office party, ooh, here's a good one, how about New Years Eve? I would suggest here that most of us have done so at some point in time. We weren't drunk we were fine weren't we? If you haven't then you are a remarkable few unless of course you don't drink at all. I'm guessing that all here are not as squeaky clean as they would make out to be, I'm not. Give the man his day in court before passing judgement.

Colobob- whether people say they've done the same thing as Wall isn't the problem. The problem is those who have done the same thing as Wall after a drink or two have never been allowed to go on their way if the officer suspected they'd been drinking or refused a roadside test. They're saying they would have been immediately taken to jail to blow in the tube or have a blood sample drawn. Two very different issues.

Answer it honestly: have you known any of your friends (or casual aquaintances) who've just been let go after being pulled over, been suspected of drinking and refusing a roadside test if asked by an officer? Not me. Ever.

To be fair, and I'm not a Wall fan by any measure, the CSP should have taken him in IF alcohol was suspected and he refused a roadside. Until we know the reasoning behind letting him go, I can only blame CSP for this.

colobob, Of the many, many people that have had a couple of drinks at a picnic, ballgame, etc. and drove off as you stated, how many do you think were driving a taxpayer owned vehicle, carrying a weapon and a badge? You also said [that most of us have done so at some point in time. We weren't drunk we were fine weren't we?] which isn't necessarily so, perhaps you just thought you were fine as many inebriated people do and happened to be lucky enough not to get caught.

Mat the short answer to your question is yes and that is a truthful and honest answer. I had a rather lenghty answer ready to post but somehow managed to lose it while I was reviewing it. Rather than trying to rewrite the whole thing over I would just ask that you read my post in Wall: I was not intoxicated. The point that I'm trying to make should be quite clear after you read it. Most of what I've read on these posts seems to be nothing more than heresay. I'll wait for the facts from the court findings before making my own judgement.

Justathought, Same answer and request that I gave Matt but I'll add one thing. I'm not for one minute suggesting that it's OK to drink and drive. It's irresponsible and just plain stupid to do so. Anyone that does so is just spinning the wheel of chance and as everyone knows roulette is a game of bad odds. Read the post mentioned above and you will understand where I'm coming from. The hyprocracy and prejudgement in some of the posts is whats got me rattled.

Colobob- I understand your point, but still- never have I experienced or heard from laypeople that they were just let go into a sober person's care without taking a roadside. Never, plain and simple.

As I always try to find a personal experience to bring to discussions, my old college buddy has an inner ear problem where his balance isn't that great sometimes. He was pulled over for weaving.and was asked to take a roadside and refused, explaining his problem. The officer was kind enough to take him to the station to blow. Came up nothing and then called the doctor to verify, before booking him. The doc verified the condition (Meni---...something. French word, if I remember correct. Almost like swimmers ear but without swimming and it's recurring) to the officer. He was let go without being booked.

By the law of the land, if an officer suspects alcohol and is refused on the roadside, they can't just gauge it by looking at them. If they refuse the roadside, they MUST face automatic license suspension. Here's the link to the statute:

From section 2 paragraph 4 of the link Matt provided.
(4) Any driver of a commercial motor vehicle requested to submit to a test as provided in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall be warned by the law enforcement officer requesting the test that a refusal to submit to the test shall result in an out-of-service order as defined under section 42-2-402 (8) for a period of twenty-four hours and a revocation of the privilege to operate a commercial motor vehicle for one year as provided under section 42-2-126.

Matt, I went to the web site you provided a link for and I came up with the above paragraph which is the only part that stated a license would be lost for a year if a test was refused. As you can see this only refers to someone driving a commercial vehicle. Please note I am not arguing any points here, just noting this. I would really like a clarification on what the rights of a driver are when asked for a roadside test. My son was stopped while traveling down Rabbit Ears (going to fast) and was asked to take a roadside test. Since his only problem was speeding (yikes) he went ahead and did the test and passed. So is speeding probable cause for a roadside test or maybe it is just up to the officers descretion? I don't know the answer to this yet everyone seems to have an opinion on what the answer is.

How wonderful that the CSP decided to endanger the lives of others yesterday by pursuing a man at very high speeds who ended up being drunk and rolled his vehicle, yet in Wall's case, they pull him over, obviously don't get any admissible evidence like a breath and blood test, but instead let him go home. I think even Kremer's lawyer from Seinfeld could get Wall out of this one.

Okay, found this.........
Under Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1301.1 a police officer may request that a driver submit to a blood, breath, saliva or urine test, where upon making a lawful contact, the officer has "probable cause" to believe that the driver is under the influence of alcohol (dui) and/or drugs (duid). The results of these tests may be used in any criminal prosecution for dui or duid or for the purposes of an administrative license revocation. Failure to "cooperate" in taking any chemical test legally requested by the police is referred to as a "refusal." A refusal can result in a minimum license revocation of one year pursuant to Section 42-4-1301.2.

I found this on another site about CO DUI info. Still says nothing about a roadside test refusal and the consequences of refusing one. Just says the result of refusing a police requested chemical test can result in a minimum of a year revocation.

Dreamriver: To clarify: The roadside tests and portable breath tests are voluntary tests. You have a choice of getting blood drawn or taking a certified intoxilizor breath test, that are not voluntary, to determine your blood alcohol content (BAC). Mr. Wall refused all tests, voluntary and involuntary.

He should have taken the breathalizer and not sure why he didn't. If he had nothing to hide it shouldn't have been a big deal. It will be impossible to take his leadership seriously and it impugns his integrity. He's failing miserably at being a role model for our children. His integrity and character should be above reproach and that being said I think he should apologize, explain and resign.

dream- You are correct, but 42-4-1301.1 is where 42-2-126 directs you to in such cases, based on "any" vehicle; not just commercial.

(2) (a) The department shall revoke the license of any person upon its determination that the person:

(I) Drove a vehicle in this state when the amount of alcohol, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, in such person's blood was 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving. If the preponderance of the evidence establishes that such person consumed alcohol between the time that the person stopped driving and the time of testing, the preponderance of the evidence must also establish that the minimum 0.10 blood or breath alcohol content was reached as a result of alcohol consumed before the person stopped driving.

(I.5) Drove a vehicle in this state when such person was under twenty-one years of age and when the amount of alcohol, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, in such person's blood was in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.10 grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.10 grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving. If the preponderance of the evidence establishes that such person consumed alcohol between the time that the person stopped driving and the time of testing, the preponderance of the evidence must also establish that the minimum required blood or breath alcohol content was reached as a result of alcohol consumed before the person stopped driving.

(I.7) Drove a vehicle in this state when such person was under twenty-one years of age and when the amount of alcohol, as shown by analysis of the person's breath, subject to section 42-4-1301.1, in such person's blood was at least 0.02 but not in excess of 0.05 grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood at the time of driving or within two hours after driving. If the preponderance of the evidence establishes that such person consumed alcohol between the time that the person stopped driving and the time of testing, the preponderance of the evidence must also establish that the minimum 0.02 breath alcohol content was reached as a result of alcohol consumed before the person stopped driving.

(II) Refused to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests of the person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine as required by section 42-4-1301.1 (2), 18-3-106 (4), or 18-3-205 (4), C.R.S.

"Anybody but Bustos! Hey Garrett, interested?"
Dundalk - in my humble opinion, the only reason that Wall was elected, was that voters were casting a no vote for Wiggins. The real choice of Routt County probably would have been Ray Birch. It is too bad for all of us that he dropped out. Our loss was Hayden's gain.
Curious as to your comment to this...
Thanks

Supposedly, the Coroner takes over Sheriff duties, from what I've read. (The "Cornoner is the only one who can arrest the Sheriff" was debunked, but is still next in line until a new one is elected, I believe.

My opinion, gathered from those I have spoken to, is that voters were fed up with Republicans. Not local Republicans per se, but with the party. I am a conservative Republican, and proud of our party.

Garrett is a friend and so I believe in his abilities to lead our county in a professional and forthright manner. I think people voted more for Gary because he was a Democrat, and it was a vote against Republicans as a whole.

Sadly, the county is now stuck with Wall. Remember, this is a man who ran a campaign based upon being open, etc. Now, however, he seems to have forgotten those "promises" and is apparently running an office based upon deception. How sad for us.

I do not know Birch butfor the times I saw him at the Republican debates last summer. He seems like a good guy and I hope the town of Hayden does well under his leadership.

dalk
so glad you are proud of the Party that has bankrupted our country, thrown the Constitution into the toilet, caused oil to be close to $100 a barrel, caused the biggest credit meltdown ever, (just wait until the bubble bursts here), and are allowing our soldiers to die needlessly because we have a pig headed dolt for a president.
Booyah!

Didn't want to let all of this go by without telling you that when you're right, you're right. You called it. Your contacts with the LE community obviously give you more insight into a lot of this stuff than the rest of us hear. I guess it's sorta like my wife used to call one of the docs "the butcher" when she worked labor and delivery (years and years ago, so don't anybody get in an uproar over the comment). She was in a position to know, and no matter what the general public thought about him, the people on the inside knew the truth.

A badge, a gun, a patrol vehicle and a drink simply do not mix under any circumstances. Put all these things together and it paints a vivid picture of power gone wrong.

At the same time, our other choices in the last election were not much better overall. We need somebody with more exposure than you can get as a patrol officer in LA or anywhere else. There are complex economic crimes going on, and you can't investigate those with a radar gun.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, I don't see how Gary Wall can ever take on "the establishment" in Routt County because he has already destroyed his credibility. Not with the DUI, but by drinking while carrying a weapon in plain sight. Colorado law (for what it's worth) is clear on the weapon and alcohol issue, and if the reports about Wall and Bustos are true, they were both out of line.

I don't think you will succeed with a recall, so we might as well all dig in for the next couple of years until Wall's term runs out.

Steamboat conscience- What does a politcal party bankrupting our country have to do with Wall being pulled over and being issued a DUI summons? Is Gary Wall going to single-handedly bring down the price of oil? LOL! He can't even make an arrest yet!!! LMAO!!

"How many of you were at that party on Saturday night? How many of you actually witnessed what and how much of what Wall drank? How many of you are such sheep that you will believe every word printed by our newspaper? You people (Steamboatrealitycheck exempted) are absolutely pathetic.
YOU HAVE NO FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What you do have is a bunch of Gary Wall haters riding on their high horses proclaiming guilt as if they were judge, jury and executioner.
Roadside tests are voluntary. You don't have to believe me - ask a lawyer.
You do not "automatically" lose your license if you refuse to do the tests. A seperate hearing is conducted by the DMV to determine probable cause. Again, ask a lawyer.
I said this earlier, but heaven forbid anyone read anything that goes against their hate mongering.
Oh yeah, in the United States of America (which Steamboat Springs is a part of), you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty by a COURT OF LAW.
Sorry folks but there shall be no cross burning tonight."

LOL...so you went as far as 10th grade american history as well. Be it so, these things are true but....take a step back and look at this situation as if anyone else on the planet would.... he was pulled over, he refused all tests (of course a lawyer will tell u to refuse)...question is if he's innocent why has it gotten to the point that he needs a lawyer? Why would anyone in his position take the path he chose given his situation? Obviously, he and all officers there knew w/out a doubt this would draw mega media attn! Who in their right mind would want that... I have never heard of anyone taking the same approach he chose that was innocent...again, what's the point of doing so? This would only draw out the process, courthouse time, our tax $, etc....much less if he was sober....why would he want to turn a 30 minute roadside test into what must have taken a cpl. hrs. to figure out what the police were going to do given the situation?... C'mon u really think this is a case of a sheriff exemplifying how each and every citizen has a right to do, were they ever in same predicament. This is the silliest comment i hv read yet re: the Wall "dui?maybe, sorta, kinda" case.
I do have 1 question though...(Col Justice perhaps u would know the answer)... What exactly is a DUI per sei? I worked in the bar bus. for yrs. and know many that were wise enuf to take the same approach as Wall (despite their poor judgement in driving under the influence in the first place)...and that is for 1 reason only...they were over the legal limit AND KNEW IT!!!" Not 1 of them were sent on their merry way home w/out a visit to the graybar hotel 1st.

GET OUT OF HERE!

By the way, U do, in fact lose ur lic. automaticly for 1 yr. if all tests are refused. although, you do hv right to appealing to the DMV & request for a special hearing to keep your lic. in the meantime....
u dummy!

I know from personal experience that, even though you're not legally intoxicated, alcohol does affect your judgment. That's how I got stopped doing 47 in a 35 zone coming down from the hot springs and ended up on the side of the road blowing into a breathalyzer. I was "legal" as far as being under the influence, but I WAS SPEEDING! Normally, I would not have been doing 12 miles over the limit anywhere, and that incident taught me something. Alcohol does affect your judgment and ability to react in a challenging situation.

So, it's entirely possible that Sheriff Wall had enough alcohol in his system to affect his judgment, but not enough to be intoxicated, and that's why all of this happened. The final lesson is don't drink at ALL and then go out and drive.

merkinswp: Per Se Laws declare it illegal to drive a vehicle above a certain alcohol level. Violating the per se law has nothing to do with ones ability to drive a car safely; it is based solely on body chemistry, units of measurement.

This article is nearly one month old and you're all still whacking the donkey over it. What a sad case of a town full of people still wagging their tongues about someone. Yeh, we have a nice town full of nice people! RIGHT!

Get a life, give it up, move on, gossip is what you and this town are all about! Sad and disgusting!

That's my whole point. Nobody is perfect, and I knew the limit was 35, but I just wasn't checking my speed. I was listening to the radio and driving, and just got going a bit too fast for the limit. The extra vigilance required to compensate for being a little bit impaired was not there. It's not the stuff you think of that gets you -- it's the stuff you don't think of because you've had a drink or two. I'm usually right on top of the speed limit and my own speed, and was taken completely by surprise by the fact that I was NOT checking my speed. When I saw the blue lights come on behind me, that's when I checked the speed -- too late. That's the insidious nature of impairment that we don't notice until something (like getting stopped for speeding) happens.

My point was that Sheriff Wall could have been drinking and could have been under the limit, but his alleged failure to agree to a roadside test (if that happened, which remains to be established as a fact) could be an indication of impairment.

former,

People have not been treated equally under the law in Routt County for a long time. I know it happens other places also, but this is where we live and have to deal with it.

It's not just the cops. It's the courts, also. Most people would be outraged if they knew the whole truth about many of the things that happen in our taxpayer funded judicial system. 99% of us never have to deal with it personally, but the ones who do quickly learn that being right, or being innocent, mean nothing without the money to spend $20,000 on a lawyer to put your case in front of a jury. If you leave it up to a judge to decide on his own, make sure you hire an attorney with good political connections to represent you. That only costs $1,000 - $2,000, and is a much better deal. Be sure to hire an attorney who sits, or has sat, on one of the local judicial review committees, or who used to be a law partner with one of the judges.